Private Investigator Believes Foul Play was Involved in the Mysterious Death of a Man in Texas
The family of a Texas man has hired a private investigator to look into his mysterious death. Alfred Wright who was 28 years of age was last seen on November 7, 2013. He went missing after reporting to a family member that his truck broke down. He was found 19 days later dead in a area where the police alleged they had checked previously.
The police chalked up Wright’s death as a drug overdose. The family didn’t like what they were hearing from the police and hired a pathologist and a private investigator named Chuck Foreman (find website).
The private investigator stated in an interview with ABC News, “They have not interviewed the family, they have not searched the truck, they just didn’t do the due diligence that you demand from law enforcement.”
Some of the things uncovered by the alleged botched investigation were the following:
- The body was found in an unnatural position.
- Wright was known as an individual not to do drugs.
- He was found unclothed in the woods.
- The authorities ruled out a homicide before the body was found.
- A second autopsy determined that Wright sustained serious and gruesome injuries suggesting foul play. Yet the original autopsy suggests no foul play.
One would wonder why the police concluded the outcome of events the way they did. I don’t want to look deep into this until the events play out further on this story but it is interesting to say the least.
Nevada Gets Sued by a Private Investigator
According to a recent article by Bloomberg Businessweek written by Patrick Clark, Nevada recently passed a law requiring private investigators to have a physical business location in the state to conduct business in the state.
A retired police detective named Troy Castillo doesn’t agree with the law and has filed a lawsuit against the state as a result. Castillo believes the law violates constitutional doctrines preventing states from discriminating out of state companies and individuals from doing business within the state.
The lawsuit also argues that the new law can tangle unrelated professions like genealogists, reporters, teachers, and anyone else looking for information within the state of Nevada.
Castillo only lives a couple hours from the state line and believes the primary reason for the new Nevada law is to protect existing private investigation businesses from out of state competition. He says he spends 95 percent of his time either working from his home or in the field.
I don’t believe this is the first state to require a physical location. Just off the top of my head I believe that New Mexico is also a state that requires a physical location to conduct business in the state which has made it difficult for nationwide investigative firms to sell their services there.
There is work to be had in Nevada and many years ago I spent my fair share of time working in the Tahoe and Reno areas of Nevada. I was only a few hours away so those assignments usually found their way to me. I don’t know the licensing requirements that exist now but I am sure things have changed since I worked over there.
FBI Balks at Background Checks for Pot Businesses
The FBI is refusing to run background checks on those applying to run legal marijuana businesses in the state of Washington. Interestingly enough the FBI has conducted checks nationwide for Colorado.
Washington state has received 7,000 applications to grow marijuana in Washington state and they can’t vet these applications without a Federal background check. The federal government will not explain why they are not conducting the background checks.
I believe that since it is a federal offense to possess or distribute marijuana the federal government is not going to assist Washington state with their newly passed law. And if I had to guess, the federal government is waiting for something bad to happen so they can say, “I told you so”.
It may take awhile for this to play out but I look forward to seeing what happens. I have a stake in this as I am a Washington resident and I don’t really care for the legalization of it.
Colorado Blogger Gets Upset Over My Opinion on the Colorado PI Licensing Bill
An unnamed blogger decided to comment on my thoughts regarding the Colorado P.I. Licensing Bill that I disagreed with. If you recall my article mainly disagreed with the different levels of licensing they were promoting. I believed the different levels had more to do with protecting the existing investigators within the state from competition.
I also believed that the voluntary license that they enacted was merely a gateway for this mandatory licensing bill to come about.
He got very upset that I had an opinion as to what was taking place in Colorado though he did agree with several of my points. He then went on to say that the only reason I weighed in on the licensing debate was for Search Engine Optimization purposes. He got all butt hurt that I had an opinion, especially since I don’t live in Colorado.
If he would have spent a little time looking at my blog he would realize that my blog caters to the new and aspiring investigator as well as the new private investigation business owner. The whole point of my website is to help those trying to get in the industry as well as help those already in it to succeed.
So this grump investigator in Colorado needs to get over himself. Licensing in any state can potentially affect anyone. One day I might want to get licensed in the state. Everyone is a potential stake holder.
Here is the bloggers article – http://coloradoprivateinvestigator.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/outsider-comments-on-colorado-pi-law/